Sudden or Gradual Enlightenment?

by
Rev.Vajra Karuna

Today's talk
is listed in the Monthly Guide as "Which is Better: Gradual
or Sudden Enlightenment?" I want to start by saying that
one is no better than the other. This is because the two
are based on very different metaphysical views of the world
and human nature. As such they can not be ranked as superior
vs. inferior. I also need to make clear that although Sudden
Enlightenment is associated with both the Soto (Ch. Tso-Tsung)
and Rinzai (Ch. Lin-Chi) Zen (Ch. Ch'an) schools the following
talk will focus only on the Rinzai attitude to Sudden Enlightenment,
and what is said here does not necessarily apply to Soto.

Before comparing
the Sudden and Gradual aspect of enlightenment I need to
give you a definition of a minimal enlightenment experience
(kensho or satori). This definition is not the only one
possible and other definitions may challenge it, especially
since it is very colored by the Rinzai tradition. The enlightenment
experience is a singularly intense experience which tells
one his or her place in the scheme of things. This is a
more often than not a once and for all experience which
will cause the experiencer never again to doubt his or her
relationship with or to the self, others, the world, and
whatever one may believe is beyond the world. This experience
is enormously validating or empowering, and is unlike any
other experience one can have. An important aspect of this
experience is that it is non-sectarian. This is to say that
the experience can be found in Buddhist, Christian, Hindu,
Islamic and many other religious traditions. Each tradition
may impose its own dogmatic interpretation on it, but the
initial experience seems to be psychological cross-cultural.
Moreover, this experience, while it can occur under many
different circum-stances, most often happens in response
to some severe intellectual, emotional or physical crises.
When you read about these awakening experiences in the lives
of the great and not so great spiritual seekers you will
see that these crises may manifest as a deep questions about
divine justice, as some life threatening illness, as a state
of despair at the loss of a loved one, as a near death experience,
or even as an attempted suicide. Note that the definition
for kensho or satori does not say anything about the ability
of the experiencer to teach others or in any way be of assistance
to the spiritual needs of others. In this regard a clear
distinction must be made between a person who has an enlightenment
experience and an enlightened person. The latter category
should be confined to those individuals who have the wisdom
and moral character to rightfully influence others plus
the charismatic abilities to do so in an entirely non-exploitive
manner. This would define an enlightened sage or holy person.
Such a person may have had a enlightenment experience, sudden
or gradual, or may have a natural spiritual maturity which
excludes the need for a satorical experience; although if
we depend on historical records a natural sage is far rarer
than one having the need for an enlightenment experience.
For the remainder of this talk, however, I will be focusing
only on the enlightenment experience itself without making
any further distinctions between sages and non-sages. Having
defined enlightenment for the purpose of this talk it is
now time to explain Sudden and Gradual in the context of
enlightenment.

In contrast to
most other forms of Buddhism which are usually called Gradual
Schools of Enlightenment, Zen (which from now on means Rinzai
Zen), is called Sudden Enlightenment School. All Buddhist
schools accept that the enlightenment experience at the
very moment it occurs is a sudden event, but this is not
the only meaning of Suddení in the Sudden Enlightenment
School context.

Buddhism from
its earliest period has had two different views effecting
its understanding of the enlightenment process. In the first,
the world is considered a place of frustrating imper-manence
and dissatisfaction (dukkha), and human nature is the product
of eons of karmic attachments to impure passions. In this
view enlightenment means the conquest and extinction of
such impurities and a subsequent escape from life, the world
and dukkha. To achieve such release requires adopting a
homeless life and an ascetic practice of dissolving human
wants and needs so as to transcend all ordinary human feelings
and passions, be they positive or negative. Love, as much
as hate, keeps one attached to the world. Only the person
who can become indifferent to both can qualify as being
an enlightened or passion free being (Arahant or Buddha).
The enlightenment process which goes along with this view
requires a long and gradual process of ascetic discipline
leading to gradated stages of enlightenment. Each higher
stage is characterized as a state of lesser attachment to
the self and the world than the previous one. For the most
part, Enlightenment in this view is not something achievable
by an ordinary layperson. This gradation concept is completely
justified if one holds to a pluralist understanding of reality
which early Buddhism does.

However, there
is the second Buddhist view which says that our dukkha is
due to the deluded belief in a separate and autonomous self.
Enlightenment in this case means a letting go of this unrealistic
self concept or "aggrandized I-ness" by awakening to the
fact that it is a delusion. The problem with the Gradual
Enlightenment approach as far as this false ego view is
that in emphasizing "I am working for enlightenment." the
sense of I-ness is actually being reinforced. Therefore,
presumably the more one practices the deeper becomes one's
delusion of a separate and autonomous self and the farther
away from enlightenment one moves. Mahayana Buddhism arose
out of this idea of there being no real independent self
and extended this selfless concept to include all reality.
This meant abandoning a pluralist understanding of reality
for a non-dual one. This is to say that every part of reality
is so fully integrated that it can not under any circumstances
be divided, especially into separate selves. Since all dualities
are delusionary, there can not even be a duality between
Samsaric, unenlightened or impure mind and Nirvanic, enlightened
or pure mind. Since non-dual reality can not be divided
into incremental parts, it can not be grasped little by
little as a Gradual Enlightenment approach implies. The
non-dual must be realized all at once (Suddenly) as a whole
or not at all. However, because early Mahayana continued
to hold on to the general Indian view of the impurity of
human passions it had to ignore the inconsistency a non-dual
view and Gradual Enlightenment.

When Buddhism
went to China this inconsistency became problematic. This
was due to the very non-Indian way the Chinese perceived
the world and human nature. Unlike Indian thinking, which
gave priority to the divine or the trans-human element of
reality, Chinese thought gave priority to the human world.
The traditional Chinese view was that people are born with
an innate sense of goodness, purity and truth, and that
the normal human passions are a part of this goodness and
an enlightened sage is someone who accepts this.

The earliest
Buddhist view which saw Samsara as impure and Nirvana as
pure could not be fully accepted by the Chinese without
totally abandoning their own more optimistic Confucianist
and Taoist traditions. However, the Mahayana teaching that
Samsara and Nirvana were the same was easily integrated
into the traditional Chinese view of life. If Samsaric passions
were in Nirvana and vice versa then enlightenment requires
no gradual dissolving away of ordinary human feelings, needs
and wants. Enlightenment is merely becoming conscious that
one is already in the unconditional state of Nirvana. Therefore,
enlightenment, rather than being a replacing of human nature
with a trans-human-like passion free nature, as in standard
Indian Buddhism, is instead just an adding on to ordinary
human nature the non-dual awareness of one's innate nirvanic
purity.

The Chinese,
in accepting the non-dual Mahayana view, became fully cognizant
of the inconsistency between non-duality and Gradual Enlightenment.
This cognition was further heightened by the fact that Taoism,
which also held to a non-dual view of reality, was more
sympathetic to a Sudden Enlightenment approach. Hence, Sudden
Enlightenment came to dominate Chinese thought, Buddhist
and non-Buddhist. Because Sudden enlightenment does not
require a gradual monastic purification it can happen at
any time and in any place within a monastic life or normal
home life. This had great appeal to the non-ascetically
oriented Chinese.

Thus, anyone,
even the most attached to the world, can experience the
enlightened state. Of course, this possibility only make
sense if enlightenment is not dependent upon any kind of
ascetic practices, not even the limited common moral restraints
of the average person. Such Sudden Enlightenment must ultimately
be attained outside of, or undeserving of, any own (ascetic
or even meditational) effort. In fact, this effort would
be appropriate only to Gradual Enlightenment. Sudden Enlightenment,
not being dependent on practice, therefore, must be more
or less accidental. The difference between the Gradual and
the Sudden view effects the way each tradition perceives
not only enlightenment, but also the Buddha. Gradualism
values enlightenment as something which makes us far better
persons, and it regards the Buddha as superior to all other
beings. In Suddenism, being enlightened does not make one
superior or more valuable than the unenlightened. Since
both have the same Buddha Nature or Nirvana within, they
are both innately of equal worth or goodness. Not needing
enlightenment to make us better means that the Buddha is
simply the first among equals according to Suddenism.

In fact, this
Sudden view of Buddhahood says that our dukkha, or fearful
attachment to life and death, is because we doubt our present
absolutely unconditioned worth (Buddha Nature). Enlightenment
is a total letting go of this doubt to intuitively realize
our equality with the Buddha. Being liberated from our dukkha,
we become content with ourselves and others just as we are.

In Suddenism
a simple intellectual realization of the above forces one
to let go of pride in one's own effort to seize enlightenment.
This lack of pride, or humility, in the face of the characteristic
accidental nature of Sudden Enlightenment is a form of letting
go of self as a source of dukkha and thus, actually a kind
of pre-enlightenment enlightenment. Actually, just this
alone is for some people sufficient enlightenment, while
for others this preliminary kind of enlightenment means
a greater chance for a breakthrough to something more. This
is especially true with a preparatory practice in place.
Preparatory practice must be clearly distinguished from
the practice that involves Gradual Enlightenment. While
no form of pre-enlight-enment practice is a requirement
for Sudden Enlightenment, and can certainly not cause or
ensure such enlightenment, it nonetheless has an important
function. Sudden Enlightenment may come to one, but unless
he or she is prepared to recognize it, and even more importantly
to integrate it into his or her everyday psychological being,
it will almost certainly come only to slip away.

We can use the
analogy of rain here. Rain, like Sudden Enlightenment, cannot
be forced into coming; it arrives on its own. Moreover,
when it falls, it does so equally on fertile and infertile
ground. If it falls on the former, there is luxurious growth;
if on the latter, there is nothing but wet soil. To develop
a pre-enlightenment practice is to ensure fertile soil when
the rain of Sudden Enlightenment falls. To have no practice
is to almost surely end up losing what one hoped to gain.
This preparatory practice is not to be viewed as any kind
of gradual coming closer and closer to the enlightenment
experience because there are no stages to it.

In other words,
unlike a Gradual Enlightenment oriented practice, in which
you can usually see progress occurring, such as a greater
and greater sense of detachment from the world; no such
progress is evidenced in a sudden practice. Moreover, whereas
in a gradual oriented practice it is usually assumed that
the practice will involve a considerable span of time, a
few too many years before clear results occur; this is not
assumed in a non-gradual practice. Since Sudden Enlightenment
does not depend on practice of any kind, and can come with
or without it, enlightenment may break through after a single
day, or on the other hand, not for many years. For this
reason, a non-gradual oriented practice may be far more
frustrating than a practice which demonstrates clear progress
towards the goal.

The advantage
however, to a non-gradual practice, and in fact one of the
reasons for its development, is that it is as practicable
outside of a monastic environment as it is in such an setting.
This is especially true of such a specific non-gradual practice
technique as the classical Chinese Kung-an (but not necessarily
the Japanese koan).

Of course, the
paradox of any pre-enlightenment practice for Sudden Enlightenment
is that, for those who pursue it, this means nothing short
of going through the frustrating experience of seeking for
what one already has, namely unconditional Buddha worthiness.
This means that one is constantly asking one's self why
am I doing this? Why can't my mind just let me experience
my true nature? Maybe this whole thing is a lie. Maybe I'm
just wasting time and energy, further deceiving myself.
This doubt is a natural part of preparation for Sudden Enlightenment
and it requires a faith equal to the doubt to keep the practice
going. This is where a teacher and a spiritual community
come in, for the teacher who has gone through the struggle
can give hope and the community of like-seekers can function
in a supportive capacity.

Neither the Gradualist
nor the Suddenist approach can guarantee enlightenment,
but each in their own way can give one a chance at gaining
it. For the person who can commit him or herself to a fully
monastic life the Gradual way may offer more hope than the
Sudden way. For those who can not make such a dramatic commitment
it may be the Sudden way that offers the hope. Like all
religious and philosophical views various rational arguments
can be made to support either a Gradualist or Suddenist
approach, but the bottom line is that neither can be logically
proven nor disproven. Both, in the final analysis, depend
largely upon faith. Indeed, all schools of Buddhism, if
not all religious traditions, require a strong faith component
before any real spiritual awakening can occur.

Appendix

In medieval
China and Japan there developed a form of Buddhist school
called Pure-Land (Ch. Ching-t'u; J. Jodo). This school taught
that due to the corruption of the world and mankind's overwhelming
amount of bad karma, no degree of human effort would be
great enough to allow an individual to liberate him or herself.
However, because of a vow to save all beings made millenniums
ago by the celestial Buddha Amitabha (Ch. O-mi-to; J. Amida)
any and all persons, be they good or evil, who in sincere
faith called upon this Buddha for liberation would receive
it. In traditional Pure-Land beliefs this liberation takes
the form of the consciousness upon death being reborn into
the heavenly paradise of Amitabha. This absolute dependency
on the divine power of another to gain liberation was called
the "other power (J. tariki) path". Because Zen and a few
other schools taught no such faith in the grace of an external
other power to liberate oneself, these were called "own
power (J. Jiriki) path", schools by the Pure-Land school.
This designation was repeated so often through the centuries
that it finally stuck, so that today even the Zen school
often uses it when differentiating itself from the Pure-Land
school. However, this is very misleading. Own powerí
implies that the individual is in full control of the liberation
process. This is more true of the non-Zen Gradual Enlightenment
schools. In those schools the individual, solely through
his or her own effort, purifies the self and works towards
the goal. But to the degree that Zen Sudden Enlightenment
is accidental, there should not be talk of own effort or
own power. Rather, the accidental aspect of Sudden Enlightenment
should be called an other then own power influence. Calling
Zen an own powerí school hides the accidental aspect
of its Sudden Enlightenment. Another way of saying this
is to give a second definition of Sudden Enlightenment.
It is the interruption of the other into the ordinary. It
is the radical discontinuity in the flow of everyday life.
It is a positive catastrophe.